I've been working on a site audit for the past week or so and have come to an exhaustively thorough section regarding usability and accessibility. While I'm not denying that this sort of information is extremely valuable when optimizing a website, my question to you guys is how much information is too much? How much information about making a site disabled user-friendly should a client receive? How long should we wax poetic about navigation and conversions before we end up beating a dead horse?
I feel like I'm starring in my own version of Groundhog's Day -- the same points are emphasized over...and over...and over again. Should we assume that we need to rub our clients' sites' weaknesses into their paying faces because it'll encourage them to make changes? Or are we being condescending in assuming that we need to tell them over and over again that their site has X amount of problems that need to be fixed pronto? After a certain point, I feel like the repetitious points start to feel like filler, but then again, I've been staring at this thing for a week now.
By: Rebecca Kelley
Is There Such a Thing as Too Much Accessibility?
Design
The author's views are entirely his or her own (excluding the unlikely event of hypnosis) and may not always reflect the views of Moz.
Building an accessible site is important and really is the 'right' thing to do. I hear many arguments from customers who say that their service or product could never be used by someone that is visually impaired. My response is always the same. The visually impaired visitor may very well be the one who either makes the purchasing decision or relays a recommendation to someone else.
The bottom line matters as does your development time. Sometimes planning and putting in a little more effort can pay back in ways that you might not be able to measure.
I'm always surprised how many 'thank you' emails our customers receive from their clients who are appreciative being able to use the site.
Maybe it leads to more revenue. It certainly makes their message more available. It definitely makes me feel like I've done something good.
We all would I guess. I do know a site owner has spent in the hundreds of thousands for a redesign on a site I reviewed and though the improvements are cutting edge, he has been a year on it, had a large team working on it and sometimes I think he's gotten so into the "is it perfect yet?, he'll never release it. He wanted it to be usable and accessible and intutive (the app part.)
The thing is, it's for a product that someone with physical disbilities would not be able to build! (It can be delivered whole I think, but that would be expensive.)
So this is a case where, to her question about too much accessibility, the answer is yes!
For SEO, speaking for myself, my personal turn around point came at an SES Seminar when Matt Bailey had us listen to a screen reader read an SEO'd site. It was impossible to listen to, let alone use the site, due to the SEO techniques included on the pages.
That changed my view forever and made me realize that a lot of what we routinely do, thinking its for the good of seach engines and rank, is really driving our vistiors away.
As for the creativity side, and the old complaint that usability kills creativity. I used to scream at that one too. I still think it to be true in many cases. But too many good designers, like the one who redesigned SEOMoz, proved that to be absolute baloney.
In the end, all we can do is provide information and point out the benefits or risks of trying something. To help decide what to apply, or not, is not easy and no fun at all. I suggest to people that they present something to stakeholders and if the "fix" will increase or better or improve something that fulfills one of the requirements (generate revenue, increase conversions, drive traffic), than try it. Test it. Throw it out if it doesn't earn its keep.
I apologize for the saracasm. It wasn't directed to SEOMoz. Although my husband had to laugh when I grumpily told him that my being seeing impaired must mean I'm disabled. He thought that was hysterical. (!?)
IMO it comes down to the bottom line. There are lots of great software products that run only on windows. The reason - not enough market from Mac customers to make the separate development pay. So these site owners probably think that there isn't enough payback there to worry about access. The way to change their thinking is to demonstrate that the access market share is real or show them how they might be challenged such as in the Target suit, or how they might be pressed by the government to comply if you think that might happen. I think that it will be hard to sell.
What is accessibility? In the USA and UK, its the law for many kinds of sites. In the USA, .gov sites must meet Section 508 standards. This is so that EVERYBODY has access to government sites, not just the ones who can see, hear or don't suffer from disease or disability.
Accessibility is a site that can be understood by reading levels. It is font sizes that can be changed, so that seeing impaired people (such as myself) can read them. Accessibility is for those whose hands fail them and they no longer can use a mouse, but their eyes can see and their ears can hear. An accessible form allows blind people to order online (which is much easier than driving a car.)
Accessibility is for those who want to read online with the same ease and comfort as anyone without any disability that would otherwise prevent it. They have cash and credit cards. They are parents. They are your family. They are the generation of young people raised on technology, to make their lives easier, and in some cases, presents them with possibilities. Why does it take knowing someone who struggles with websites to suddenly "get it"?
The question I have is. Why would anyone NOT care about accessibility for their web site?
As for usability, if a site is meeting its requirements and its visitors and stakeholders are satisfied, all traffic converts to revenue and it ranks at the top because everybody loves it and links to it, then I wouldn't hire usability help. I'd give that webmaster a raise.
I want to meet the site owner who's really achieved this. In marketing and website improvement, I don't think there's any such thing as perfect - your sarcasm rings true here - keep on working at it...
I suppose that I've overlooked disabled people's web needs. I'm not at all saying that they're not important and shouldn't be considered when designing a site, but do you think there's a point where it's impossible to try and satisfy every user's needs? I know that it's always a goal to know your user's needs, but what if trying to accomodate one user alienates another? Where's the line drawn?
That's an excellent question! Imagine being a software developer and the boss says "build this our way, to our specs and after we roll it out, we'll see who can't use it." (I've experienced this one.)
LOL. It happens all the time. I think we can only do our best and at least find basics that we're comfortable with and have the skills to do. I think many site owners would fix things if they knew there was a problem, but they don't put a feedback form on their site to find out. I learned the importance of a privacy policy when I had a newsletter (years ago) and one nice woman emailed me to say she refused to sign up because I didn't have a privacy policy. I since learned this is a popular abandonment trigger, and yet so easy to fix.
Big companies can do user testing with real people, remotely and with labs and can feed developers demographic info and still they'll miss people. For the rest of us humble folks, we do our best and as a customer service, maybe ask for feedback to what we can improve on.
User personas and marketing data can provide good information to help with designing the IA and set up the points for conversion. Server logs will also tell where something isn't working, when humans will not whisper a word. These things help us, but I'm sure we still miss the mark and after awhile, site owners have to decide which marks to hit, and which to let go of.
I don't think we can make a direct perfect hit on launch and I believe that all enhancements, whether UI, usability, accessibility, or stuff hiding in the source code are all part of maintenance and customer (visitor) satisfaction.
By the way, there's so much food for thought with this thread. I admire you for asking the tough questions :)
I'm a firm believer that over-analyzing the usability and design of a website can really screw it up. In my experience, excessive analysis of those two things almost NEVER yields a better product. Designs get changed, buttons grow bigger, content moves around, and you're left with an abomination that once was a gorgeous, moderately usable site. I'm not saying abandon usability completely, I just think moderation is key.
Depends on what kind of "usability" you're talking about. When you hang out with the Eisenberg brothers or some of the masters of optimizing on-page flow for CTR and purchase, just watch the conversion rates through analytics.
I've seen charts showing minor improvements every week that lead to higher and higher sales and profits - IMO, there are some forms of usability and design analysis that can never be overdone - like tweaking a keyword buying campaign, you just continue to refine, test, refine, test until your bank account is too big, then you sit on a beach and let someone else do it :)
I'm a fan of persuasive creativy and ingeniosity, and I think accessibility is a important factor, but I mean, there is a difference between Jacob Nielsen, which I totally understand its point of view of usability and accessibility, and Creativity with a big C. In my heart, I also have in mind, when I know I'm totally absorbed by my 19''CRT screen, that deep within me, Internet is great because of all the creativity/share-it-all-for-free that remains within it, not because how accessible, seo friendly or linkbaiting friendly it is.
But I think the greatest SEO's of all time, the ones that history should remember, are the ones who will have guided the others with no competition in mind, the ones who build and rebuild Internet as it evolves...
I mean, I just joined the SEO/SEM community a couple months ago, and I already feel the immense change it has done to our business and within us as individuals within a tight group with a vision. Accessibility is a part that just plugs everything altogether, it is not the essence of a website.
My 2cents!
But will clients want accessibility to be the essence of their website?
If they do, everything is lost! I mean, web IS improving, it has been SO MUCH WORSE before (and I guess so much better in other ways too).
I mean accessibility... accessibility doesn't even stand on its own... a added-value does, a unique concept does, a creative idea can generated more creative ideas so it does have some backbone or value in it...
I think we could compare accessibility and technology as they are closely related, yet they have no added value on their own... they are a great support, but they should never be a point to start from in any web project!
This is where, us, as the seo community, must guide our customers to get the creativity they have that generate so much hype offline into their website; they have to get involved, they have to be passionnate about their web project, they have to "care" because they "want to care"... And this is one of the toughest mission to do, but it is, in my opinion, the only mission we have.